If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is anybody here divorced or remarried? If so, then where do you (generic you) get off judging gay people?

I am, however my first marriage was by the mayor and not in a church. My 2nd marriage was in a church and we're still married. First one wasn't "in the eyes of God". 2nd one was. Also, my first marriage ended due to adultery(not by me). If I were Muslim, I would have been free to kill my first wife. Would you have been OK with that?

Originally Posted by Lanie

Is anybody here divorced or remarried? If so, then where do you (generic you) get off judging gay people?

And where do I get off judging gays? Simple. Their lifestyle is a deviant lifestyle and it has little to do with actual love than it does sex. Anal and oral sex is all about getting off and never about procreating. Not that I don't enjoy the occasional BJ but in my relationship, I can also make babies so my relationship isn't 100% about sex. Also, I find gays obnoxious and IMO all they want is attention. Why else would you dress like this:

Generally speaking "hot button issues" get a lot of publicity and people are well aware of what the bills are.

Issues like "prop 8" and "prop 19" in their respective states get enough publicity that generally "vote yes on prop #" is enough to get the point across without a manifesto stapled to the sign.

What is there to hide?

That's like saying phrases like "support the 2nd amendment" are trying to hide something because they don't say "I want to walk around carrying a gun on my hip like I'm in an old Clint Eastwood movie"

You tell me what there is to hide. It's your side that is hiding their motives. That being said, it doesn't matter. If the measure passes, then the left will take it to court. Just like prop 8. To people like you, you're all about democracy until something doesn't go your way then you try to discard it through the courts. In other words, power to the people unless it goes against your views.

If I were Muslim, I would have been free to kill my first wife. Would you have been OK with that?

lol no you wouldn't.

And where do I get off judging gays? Simple. Their lifestyle is a deviant lifestyle and it has little to do with actual love than it does sex. Anal and oral sex is all about getting off and never about procreating.

Why does procreation have to be a pre-requisite for love?

When you were a kid did your parents tell you that you couldn't get a boy and girl rabbit because they will love each other and have babies? Don't take it too literally my friend.

You've got to help explain your logic in linear terms because this doesn't make sense.

Not that I don't enjoy the occasional BJ but in my relationship, I can also make babies so my relationship isn't 100% about sex.

You enjoy acts of sodomy but that's okay because your relationship isn't a 100% about sex, which you know because you are able to make babies.

You do realize that none of this makes any sense, right?

Let's do this the logical way.

A: Gay men are 100% about sex because they enjoy oral sex.
B: You enjoy oral sex.
It would follow then that: C: your relationship is also 100% about sex, however....
D: your relationship not 100% about sex because you are able to create a baby.
E: Making a baby requires having sex.
Therefore: if all of these are true, it must be true that being 100% about sex is not connected to how much or what kind of sex one participates in, but whether it is possible (although not necessary actualized) for one to have a baby through sex.

Finally F: if your relationship is "all about sex", it is deviant and should be judged accordingly.

This would mean the following things are true:
1. You can have sex all day every day, anal, oral, ear, fetishes or whatever, and your relationship is not all about sex, if it's physically possible for you to make a baby. This is nice and decent and proper.
2. You can have sex once a month or less in an emotionally-based relationship, but your relationship is 100% about sex if you are unable to make a baby. This is deviant and wrong.

This means heterosexual relationships with post-menopausal women or partners who otherwise are not able to have children are "100% about sex" and therefore should be judged as deviant.

Also, I find gays obnoxious and IMO all they want is attention. Why else would you dress like this:

[/quote]

You are confusing "those gays" with "gays" in general. I've known several homosexuals since college and none of them did anything like that. In fact, at some crazier college parties in my younger days, straight men were doing things closer to that.

If you find homosexuality to be gross, that's fine. If you don't like seeing men dance around in gay pride parades, then that's fine too, you don't have to like it. If you think gays are filthy sodomites who deserve to be buried, well that's your thing I hope that works for you.

I personally think it's silly to be so sensitive about gays, but that's because I live in a gay-friendly city and I've had more exposure. The shock has worn off long ago and it's really no big deal to me. I can totally see how someone with traditional values and traditional gender roles would see it as perverted and wrong. I'm not going to tell you that you should not feel that way.

Living in a society like ours with different groups doesn't mean you have to smile and get along with everyone and like everyone and hold hands and form a rainbow and appreciate everyone's differences. In fact, if anything it means there is going to be more conflict and discomfort from having things you don't agree with around.

However, if you want to have to right to be opposed to homosexuality, the right to teach your kids that homosexuality is a perverted lifestyle, the right to say you think it's gross (and I think you should have all these rights staunchly protected from oversensitive liberals), then you should also respect the rights of them to live their lifestyle in their own homes. That's the give and take.

I think if you are opposed to the stereotypical promiscuity and lewdness of homosexuality, then you should let them be married, if anything that will encourage a more toned-down monogamous brand of homosexuality that you can more easily ignore.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

You tell me what there is to hide. It's your side that is hiding their motives. That being said, it doesn't matter. If the measure passes, then the left will take it to court. Just like prop 8. To people like you, you're all about democracy until something doesn't go your way then you try to discard it through the courts. In other words, power to the people unless it goes against your views.

What does this have to do with me? I support gay rights but honestly it's very low on my political radar. I see it as just another part of milquetoast liberal multiculturalism (which I have offered many criticisms of).

I've noticed something about your pattern of posting, you almost always tell me what I believe and how wrong it is, but I can't recall a single time you've honestly asked me if I agreed or disagreed with something, or openly asked me to articulate my thoughts on a subject.

You simply conflate me (and everyone else who is politically to the left of you) with this large thing called "liberalism".

I don't think it's simply fighting strawmen, you seem eager to beat up on "liberalism" and you use people on the internet who are to the left of you to stand in for that place so you have an object to aim your frustration at. I am eager to beat up on liberalism as well, so perhaps your motivations are misplaced.

I have many extreme criticisms about liberals today and you'd be surprised how often I agree with you, even though I'm looking at them from a different angle.

You should try to get my perspective before you argue against it.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

1. There is an argument that our society being too much of a "me" society is dangerous. The argument is that no one is an island, and that policies affect society as a whole. There is an implicit idea that we, as members of this society, need to think beyond our own selves and consider what is good for the society we live in, if we want to continue to benefit from living in a prosperous society.

You claim that allowing gay marriage will undermine moral principles and social constructs which benefit our society, and with these social institutions changing, the end result will be detrimental to all of us.

Now I don't agree with that conclusion, but I hope you can agree that I've followed your logic correctly.

What I have an issue with, is a stark inconsistency with arguments I've seen countless times over on other issues, such as health care or education. Over and over I hear people say "why should I pay for public education if I don't have kids or if my kids don't go to public school?". Doesn't the same line of logic apply here: education is a public good that benefits the society as a whole that your family lives in. Rather than simply thinking of yourself, you should think beyond your own nose and support institutions that benefit all of us, if you want to your children to live in a functional society.

As for health care, the same thing applies: "why should I have to pay for someone else's health care? I have my own health care from my job". Again, as a society, health institutions benefit all of us since we can only function in relation to one another.

I'm curious how the people who advocate this line of logic reconcile this apparent inconsistency.

2. The justification for the argument that gay marriage will harm society seems to be as follows:
Kids need a good family life when they are young.
If they do not have a good family life, they are more likely to miss out on character-building foundations that will allow them to be responsible, functional adults.
The model for a good family life is the Nuclear Family.
The further one deviates from this ideal Nuclear Family, the worse the childhood conditions will be for raising a proper adult.
Note: While not everyone from a good nuclear family will grow up to be a proper adult, and while not everyone from a broken home or alternative family structure will grow up to be a criminal deviant, it is safe to say that the odds are more likely in that respect.

Have I followed this line of logic correctly?

If so, I've spotted another inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform, many conservatives state that it is important for single mothers to work if they want to receive government assistance. This brings up a tricky situation: if a single mother is poor, forcing her to work in order to get assistance means her child or children will have less parental support in their formative years. In this case, some right-wingers support separating a child from their mother to make sure the mother isn't getting a "free-ride". They think teaching the mother a lesson is more important than the child having a parent at home with them. Don't conservatives who see the extreme important value of parental structure see how these policies may result in poorly-reared children who grow up to be maladjusted adults?

Wei,

There is no inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform most single mothers aren't watching after their children so expecting them to work is only going to be a positive effect on the children. Teach by example, instill in them the work ethic. If you want things a job will be the best shot at getting them. Many two parent households have both parents working to support an out of control Tax anything and everything govt. Sure it would be better for a parent to stay home and rear the children but one parent works primarily to pay the tax bill the other for support.

So you can see there is no inconsistency in the Welfare to work argument.

Try harder next time.

The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.

There is no inconsistency. On the issue of welfare reform most single mothers aren't watching after their children so expecting them to work is only going to be a positive effect on the children.

Whoa now this is just a wild accusation. Do you have some evidence for this claim?

Teach by example, instill in them the work ethic. If you want things a job will be the best shot at getting them. Many two parent households have both parents working to support an out of control Tax anything and everything govt. Sure it would be better for a parent to stay home and rear the children but one parent works primarily to pay the tax bill the other for support.

How about this, if a person is receiving welfare, they should be required to take job training classes or do volunteer work. However, these volunteer hours and classes should be at flexible schedules (changable hours, night classes, etc) to allow parents to raise their children.

I would even support optional pro-family parenting classes, nutrition classes, and other information sources that would help parents raise their kids better.

The tricky part is requiring people to do things that will take them away from their kids.

Another option, if you really want parents to work to receive welfare (I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of people having to work for benefits. I agree that sitting in your butt and getting welfare checks is not a good thing), is to have government-funded daycare centers for their children. This would be costly, but if the theory holds that making people work for welfare will ultimately result in less people on welfare, it should pay for itself. Not to mention the next generation of kids having better upbringing opportunities, so they have a better chance of not needing welfare when they grow up.

So you can see there is no inconsistency in the Welfare to work argument.

Try harder next time.

There is an inconsistency as it is normally presented, but with some modifications, those inconsistencies are fixed and I can get behind it fully.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.